Key result
Multisite pacing with multipolar and multivein pacing showed no acute hemodynamic benefit compared to optimized biventricular pacing overall, though patients with significant left ventricular scar exhibited a small improvement with multipolar pacing.
Why the study?
Does multisite pacing (multipolar or multivein) improve acute hemodynamic response compared to optimized biventricular pacing in patients with LBBB indicated for CRT?
Does multisite pacing (multipolar or multivein) improve acute hemodynamic response compared to optimized biventricular pacing in patients with LBBB indicated for CRT?
Multisite pacing does not improve acute hemodynamic response over optimized biventricular pacing in unselected LBBB patients, but may offer slight benefit in those with significant left ventricular scar.
Should not alter CRT pacing strategy; leaves open scar-targeted multipolar pacing for randomized evaluation.
BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether presence, amount and distribution of scar impacts the degree of acute hemodynamic response (AHR) with multisite pacing.Multi-vein pacing (MVP) or multipolar pacing (MPP) with a multi-electrode left ventricular (LV) lead may offer benefits over conventional biventricular pacing in patients with myocardial scar. METHODS: . Patients had cardiac magnetic resonance scar imaging to assess the effect of scar presence, amount and distribution on AHR. RESULTS: 24 patients (QRS 171 ± 20 ms) completed the study (83% male). An ischemic etiology was present in 58% and the mean scar volume was 6.0 ± 7.0%. Overall discounting scar, MPP and MVP showed no significant AHR increase compared to an optimized "best BiV" (BestBiV) site. In a minority of patients (6/24) receiver-operator characteristic analysis of scar volume (cut off 8.48%) predicted a small AHR improvement with MPP (sensitivity 83%, specificity 94%) but not MVP. Patients with scar volume > 8.48% had a MPP-BestBiV of 3 ± 6.3% vs. -6.4 ± 7.7% for those below the cutoff. There was a significant correlation between the difference in AHR and scar volume for MPP-BestBiV (R = 0.49, p = 0.02) but not MVP-BestBiV(R = 0.111, p = 0.62). The multielectrode lead positioned in scar predicted MPP AHR improvement (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Multisite pacing with MPP and MVP shows no AHR benefit in all-comers compared to optimized BestBiV pacing. There was a minority of patients with significant scar volume in relation to the LV site that exhibited a small AHR improvement with MPP.(Study identifier NCT01883141).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jackson et al. (2018) studied Heart failure with left bundle branch block (n=24). Multisite pacing (multipolar and multivein pacing) vs. Optimized conventional biventricular pacing was evaluated on Mean change in LV dP/dtmax from baseline (Acute Hemodynamic Response). Multisite pacing with multipolar and multivein pacing showed no acute hemodynamic benefit compared to optimized biventricular pacing overall, though patients with significant left ventricular scar exhibited a small improvement with multipolar pacing.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: